This is the problem with "law enforcement" is that you believe that you are somehow on the same level as citizens. You are and should be stripped of
your rights when you put on your uniform. You become tools of the law. I am sick and tired of hearing cops complain and cry that they are "in harms
way" I DONT CARE, ITS WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR.

You no longer can react in a situation as a civilian would. You cannot justify killing ANY civilian. You are to protect the public, innocent people,
even the guy grabbing a gun and pointing it at you is INNOCENT until due process of law, this is what the law says, this is the boundary you operate
under. You swore to it, you are entrusted with it, you are paid for it.

Personally, I dont care if he killed 10 cops defending himself. Its what we pay cops for. The ONLY time (in my opinion) a cop should be allowed to use
deadly force is if the person displays a threat to another civilian.

LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN. THE ONLY TIME ITS OK FOR A UNIFORMED OFFICER TO KILL A CIVILIAN IS IF THEY ARE A THREAT TO ANOTHER CIVILIAN.

Tools of the law. You are no longer a father, a mother, a son... with that uniform on, you are a tool. You work within the boundaries of the law. You
chose the life of law enforcement which carries a responsibly and a liability.

This is the problem with "law enforcement" is that you believe that you are somehow on the same level as citizens. You are and should be stripped of
your rights when you put on your uniform. You become tools of the law. I am sick and tired of hearing cops complain and cry that they are "in harms
way" I DONT CARE, ITS WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR.

You no longer can react in a situation as a civilian would. You cannot justify killing ANY civilian. You are to protect the public, innocent people,
even the guy grabbing a gun and pointing it at you is INNOCENT until due process of law, this is what the law says, this is the boundary you operate
under. You swore to it, you are entrusted with it, you are paid for it.

Personally, I dont care if he killed 10 cops defending himself. Its what we pay cops for. The ONLY time (in my opinion) a cop should be allowed to use
deadly force is if the person displays a threat to another civilian.

LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN. THE ONLY TIME ITS OK FOR A UNIFORMED OFFICER TO KILL A CIVILIAN IS IF THEY ARE A THREAT TO ANOTHER CIVILIAN.

Tools of the law. You are no longer a father, a mother, a son... with that uniform on, you are a tool. You work within the boundaries of the law. You
chose the life of law enforcement which carries a responsibly and a liability.

LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN. THE ONLY TIME ITS OK FOR A UNIFORMED OFFICER TO KILL A CIVILIAN IS IF THEY ARE A THREAT TO ANOTHER CIVILIAN.

That's ridiculous. So if someone points a gun at their head, they should not be allowed to do ANYTHING? What good is law enforcement then?

As a human being, if their own life is being threatened, they absolutely have the right to defend themselves. It's clear you have hate for them..
when you lower them to a level below being a human being with a right to life.

About the job, nation wide FBI check for even a misdemeanor warned don't even apply. Me, basically honest left the room. Most people say let them
find it, don't tell. I don't want to get the job then. That's how. And I read the articles in the paper about helping the poor felons find work and
how tough it is for them. Ain't that it? I should go through some kind of rehab for my crime. of just being. what would they say? You ah just uh well
I don't know. Go home and shave. or something. Just don't ask for a job at a bank. We want real criminals in there.

As for your court case, Summers vs. Whatever. Detention at a crime scene. They detained the # out of that guy in Seattle didn't they? Nuf said. I
have exercised my free speech. I think it's pretty dirt. Not clean. Pretty bloody. Next time they should just blow up the building. Warrant served.

So, how many officers fired their weapons to have 16 or 20 shots, depending on which news version you hear, fly? Was it one with an extended
clip/magazine? 2?, 3?, 4? If it was jsut one or two, you'd think they would've known the man was not a threat by the time they reloaded. I could
see the first officer(s) continuing the firefight if they were hearing shots fired but not knowing who was firing them, possibly some other cops
standing next to them. I think when shots are fired in a closed area, it is sometimes hard to discern their origination.

Either that or maybe this was a Big Failed Execution/Hit of some sort.

Completely incorrect. While I may be a "tool of the law" I still hold my rights as an American citizen and human being. I have the inherent right of
self-defense just as any civilian does.

When you say that someone pointing a gun at me is INNOCENT until proven in a court of law you are correct. But pointing a firearm at me, or a civilian
is assault. My job as a tool of the law would be to place the individual under arrest for assault. In attempting to place an individual under arrest
who is pointing a gun at me, and I feel threatened, I would use the means necessary to place the individual under arrest (in this case, escalation of
force up to deadly force). So yeah, as part of me being a "tool of the law" I can use deadly force as I would be performing my duties of
apprehension. Also, brandishing a firearm does put civilians in danger. Unlike in your video games, bullets travel for long distances and through
objects, and brandishing one with the intent to fire it puts all in it's path in danger.

Oh and if you want to bring law in, you're actually incorrect in everything you said.

Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the
peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent
the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the
infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible
(Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).

By the grace of God this man lived? Truly insane police state we have here. We need to demand more from our people in law. This strays so far from
the constitution, we might as well live in the good ole days of the U.S.S.R. or Rwanda. Crazy man.

If I were after a convicted felon accused of violent crime, I would take him as he grabbed a gallon of milk in a grocery store. Not storm his
potentially well stocked home in the middle of the night like I was some kind of villain myself.

Completely incorrect. While I may be a "tool of the law" I still hold my rights as an American citizen and human being. I have the inherent right of
self-defense just as any civilian does.

When you say that someone pointing a gun at me is INNOCENT until proven in a court of law you are correct. But pointing a firearm at me, or a civilian
is assault. My job as a tool of the law would be to place the individual under arrest for assault. In attempting to place an individual under arrest
who is pointing a gun at me, and I feel threatened, I would use the means necessary to place the individual under arrest (in this case, escalation of
force up to deadly force). So yeah, as part of me being a "tool of the law" I can use deadly force as I would be performing my duties of
apprehension. Also, brandishing a firearm does put civilians in danger. Unlike in your video games, bullets travel for long distances and through
objects, and brandishing one with the intent to fire it puts all in it's path in danger.

Oh and if you want to bring law in, you're actually incorrect in everything you said.

Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the
peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent
the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the
infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible
(Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).

cheers.

So, I guess my question would be this...

You cant shoot someone maybe twice to stop them?

ya know, in the knee or something..

You guys need to unload a whole clip to justify what you do?

are you that badd of a shot that you can't subdue someone with maybe two shots???

Those cops should each be sent to prision for twenty years no parole, and hard labour. No ifs or butts, and no excuses they have commitment heinous
crime and if they get anything less, then the justice system has failed dismally.

Originally posted by baddmove
I have never posted about bad cops before..

But this just blew my mind..really?

Please watch the video....it's in the link..

A King County man was shot while sleeping in his bed 16 times by local police who invaded the house. Police declared they “felt threatened” by
the man who was not the subject of a warrant or investigation. The Department of Corrections and the Kings County Sheriff’s office saw no problem
with the random shooting stating it was in compliance with the law. One of the deputies involved in the shootings Detective Aaron Thompson received
sustained violations for abuse of authority and poor performance. The man who was shot has no criminal record and has lost his ability to make a
living due to his injuries. Apparently the officers were serving an arrest warrant on someone other than the actual victim and they did not ask the
owner of the house if there were any weapons present or if a third-party resided there. The detectives involved did not work with other detectives who
were present or contact a supervisor before attempting to serve the warrant that ended in the tragic shooting. Since the incident occurred in
February, the Kings County Sheriff’s office has taken steps to provide additional trainings to deputies to avoid shooting more innocent civilians in
their beds

Being that you work in law enforcement I'm curious if you believe that your perception of risk and my perception of risk are equal. After all,
that's pretty much what this situation boils down to. The shooters had a perception of risk and they acted upon it. Had someone outside of law
enforcement acted upon the same perception of risk, the legal outcome would be much different. That is why stories like this anger me so much. Not
because I don't think law enforcement has a right to defend themselves. Because I think law enforcement abuses that right. "I felt threatened"
isn't so much a valid explanation anymore as it is an excuse and/or catch phrase to cover for their misconduct and extreme lack of judgement. And
each time it is successfully used to justify shooting unarmed, nonthreatening civilians the people get more apprehensive towards law enforcement.

really, who the F sends someone for Marijuana..lol it's a natural plant..Although I quit it, I have nothing against it as I enjoyed it. It's not
even a "drug" why waste money on these peddle runners, when they should be after people for weapons and smuggling and human trafficking and
murders.. Why just weed.. Sad, and now we have some dude prob half asleep getting shot up for no reason wow.. dude was prob putting his arm to either
get his flash light to see who the F in his room or to go back to sleep and ignore them..

Being that you work in law enforcement I'm curious if you believe that your perception of risk and my perception of risk are equal. After all, that's
pretty much what this situation boils down to. The shooters had a perception of risk and they acted upon it. Had someone outside of law enforcement
acted upon the same perception of risk, the legal outcome would be much different. That is why stories like this anger me so much. Not because I
don't think law enforcement has a right to defend themselves. Because I think law enforcement abuses that right. "I felt threatened" isn't so much a
valid explanation anymore as it is an excuse and/or catch phrase to cover for their misconduct and extreme lack of judgement. And each time it is
successfully used to justify shooting unarmed, nonthreatening civilians the people get more apprehensive towards law enforcement.

Awesome viewpoint!

I could go on for hours about it, and it all comes down to the same thing my new friend on ATS said -- LEOs are tools of the law. Cops are targets
when it comes to violent crime, so yes our perception of risk is in fact greater than that of a civilian.

speaking literally, I don't know why any two civilian would be in another man's bedroom armed with firearms unless it was something malicious... so of
course they would be held to a different standard.

And also, I agree that there are circumstances when cops abuse the "I felt threatened" line. Look at that other story about the TASERing of a pregnant
woman, that's an abuse right there. But for the situation in this scenario, I believe the force was applicable.

Somewhat agree. If he was armed, i'd rather deal with him at his residence away from large groups of bystanders. May be safer for the cops in the
public area, but the risk to the public is greater if shots start getting thrown around.

Perhaps. Though - as hypotheticals go, I can't recall the last time I heard / read about a bad guy shooting up a grocery store or public place as the
cops tried to arrest him.

I'm just saying. The number of stories about shootouts taking place during an arrest at a private residence are several orders of magnitude more
common than shoot outs in Walmart parking lots, for example.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.